America doing well under Trump

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
16,519
Reaction score
830
Points
113
I did it from memory, but here’s a link for you. It’s pretty simple math:
http://money.cnn.com/gallery/news/economy/2017/01/06/obama-economy-10-charts-final/3.html

I said, it’s one quarter of GDP. You’re making my point for me. Trump was being criticized for a short period in time. But, that poor quarter was still better than Obama’s entire two terms. Subtract the Obama’s first year of GDP, and it’s still worse.

Lastly, AGAIN, it’s one quarter. That’s why it’s OK.
Right. Just subtract the first year. It should only take one year to get out of severe recession. Jeezus H. Martha. That's not the way the real world works. Furthermore, in Obama's last two years the deficit was far smaller than Trump's first two. And Trump is working with a Congress that is giving him almost everything he wanted. Obama's final six he had a Congress that worked directly against him. One would hope for far better results from Trump, given a fair comparison. We are not seeing it. So far, given the easy situation he came into, one would expect a far better economy. Maybe it'll come and it just needs to accelerate. I have a lot of doubts.

What you should be beginning to realize is that tax cuts just don't have a big effect on economic stimulation. And that's being said by a person who thought the corporate tax cuts would actually have a pretty big effect (with almost nothing coming from the personal cuts). They haven't. At least not yet.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,393
Reaction score
2,166
Points
113
Right. Just subtract the first year. It should only take one year to get out of severe recession. Jeezus H. Martha. That's not the way the real world works. Furthermore, in Obama's last two years the deficit was far smaller than Trump's first two. And Trump is working with a Congress that is giving him almost everything he wanted. Obama's final six he had a Congress that worked directly against him. One would hope for far better results from Trump, given a fair comparison. We are not seeing it. So far, given the easy situation he came into, one would expect a far better economy. Maybe it'll come and it just needs to accelerate. I have a lot of doubts.

What you should be beginning to realize is that tax cuts just don't have a big effect on economic stimulation. And that's being said by a person who thought the corporate tax cuts would actually have a pretty big effect (with almost nothing coming from the personal cuts). They haven't. At least not yet.
Jobs up 223,000. Unemployment 3.8% - 18 year low. Real unemployment remains much higher so there is still lots of room for growth-- getting people off of welfare.

Corporate tax cuts are a ways off from full impact. When companies close their books at year end- there will be another surge in hiring and in wages.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,048
Reaction score
1,240
Points
113
Right. Just subtract the first year. It should only take one year to get out of severe recession. Jeezus H. Martha. That's not the way the real world works. Furthermore, in Obama's last two years the deficit was far smaller than Trump's first two. And Trump is working with a Congress that is giving him almost everything he wanted. Obama's final six he had a Congress that worked directly against him. One would hope for far better results from Trump, given a fair comparison. We are not seeing it. So far, given the easy situation he came into, one would expect a far better economy. Maybe it'll come and it just needs to accelerate. I have a lot of doubts.

What you should be beginning to realize is that tax cuts just don't have a big effect on economic stimulation. And that's being said by a person who thought the corporate tax cuts would actually have a pretty big effect (with almost nothing coming from the personal cuts). They haven't. At least not yet.
More sound logic. It’s unrealistic to think Obama could recover from a severe recession in much less than two terms, but the Trump/GOP tax cuts that started 5 months ago haven’t had an impact and must be failing. Geezus H... (stole your reaction)
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,393
Reaction score
2,166
Points
113
More sound logic. It’s unrealistic to think Obama could recover from a severe recession in much less than two terms, but the Trump/GOP tax cuts that started 5 months ago haven’t had an impact and must be failing. Geezus H... (stole your reaction)
And...Obama ran up 10 trillion in debt to try and stimulate the economy rather than letting the market doing it. The annual cost in interest payments on Obama's efforts is about 230 billion.
 

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
31,874
Reaction score
107
Points
63
African Americans made HUUUUGE gains in the labor force participation rate. HUGE.

Historic jobs report for Blacks and Latinos. Best in American history. I see that bothers our progressive friends. Got to keep them darkies down on the government plantation. LOL! Y'all sick.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
9,936
Reaction score
1,019
Points
113
African Americans made HUUUUGE gains in the labor force participation rate. HUGE.

Historic jobs report for Blacks and Latinos. Best in American history. I see that bothers our progressive friends. Got to keep them darkies down on the government plantation. LOL! Y'all sick.
In Feb 2017 the labor force participation rate for blacks was 62.3%. In May 2018 it was 62.1%.
 

Page

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2017
Messages
155
Reaction score
1
Points
16
The momentum of Obama’s eight years still going strong I see.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
43,238
Reaction score
2,353
Points
113
Jobs up 223,000. Unemployment 3.8% - 18 year low. Real unemployment remains much higher so there is still lots of room for growth-- getting people off of welfare.

Corporate tax cuts are a ways off from full impact. When companies close their books at year end- there will be another surge in hiring and in wages.
Awesome. I can't wait for those rapidly shrinking deficits.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
43,238
Reaction score
2,353
Points
113
In Feb 2017 the labor force participation rate for blacks was 62.3%. In May 2018 it was 62.1%.
I see the problem. You're comparing a fake # to a real one. Trump hadn't had time to rid the Feb. 2017 report of Obama's lies. I bet the 2017 # was closer to 40%. :cool:
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,048
Reaction score
1,240
Points
113
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
So we are to evaluate the economy on one factor? If I had to evaluate the economy on one factor, it wouldn’t be the unemployment rate. And, if I was forced to use unemployment rate as THE factor, I’d say that Trump’s unemployment rate is lower than any year in that chart.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
9,936
Reaction score
1,019
Points
113
bga1 posted some job numbers. Page attributed that to a continuation of the record under Obama. You scoffed. I posted evidence of Page's point.

But anyway:

<iframe src='https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/embed/?s=gdp+cqoq&v=201805301234v&d1=20080101&d2=20181231&h=300&w=600' height='300' width='600' frameborder='0' scrolling='no'></iframe><br />source: <a href='https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth'>tradingeconomics.com</a>
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,048
Reaction score
1,240
Points
113
bga1 posted some job numbers. Page attributed that to a continuation of the record under Obama. You scoffed. I posted evidence of Page's point.

But anyway:

<iframe src='https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/embed/?s=gdp+cqoq&v=201805301234v&d1=20080101&d2=20181231&h=300&w=600' height='300' width='600' frameborder='0' scrolling='no'></iframe><br />source: <a href='https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth'>tradingeconomics.com</a>
It wasn’t evidence of a growing economy. It was evidence of an improving unemployment rate, which is one of a number of factors that influence the economy. It certainly is not conclusive of anything but the unemployment rate.

You have criticized Reagan’s economic success, no? Yet his trends on unemployment were excellent.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
9,936
Reaction score
1,019
Points
113
It wasn’t evidence of a growing economy. It was evidence of an improving unemployment rate, which is one of a number of factors that influence the economy. It certainly is not conclusive of anything but the unemployment rate.

You have criticized Reagan’s economic success, no? Yet his trends on unemployment were excellent.
Again, no one was talking about a growing economy. People were talking about the jobs numbers until you changed the discussion.

No, I don't believe I've criticized Reagan's economic success. I have pointed out that the revisionist history of his tax cuts leading to a boom in tax revenues ignores that revenues dipped until he raised taxes.

You describe Reagan's trends on unemployment as "excellent," so I supposed you'd say the same about Obama since the numbers are strikingly similar.

<iframe src='https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/embed/?s=usurtot&v=201806011239v&d1=19810201&d2=19890101&h=300&w=600' height='300' width='600' frameborder='0' scrolling='no'></iframe><br />source: <a href='https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate'>tradingeconomics.com</a>
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,048
Reaction score
1,240
Points
113
Again, no one was talking about a growing economy. People were talking about the jobs numbers until you changed the discussion.

No, I don't believe I've criticized Reagan's economic success. I have pointed out that the revisionist history of his tax cuts leading to a boom in tax revenues ignores that revenues dipped until he raised taxes.

You describe Reagan's trends on unemployment as "excellent," so I supposed you'd say the same about Obama since the numbers are strikingly similar.

<iframe src='https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/embed/?s=usurtot&v=201806011239v&d1=19810201&d2=19890101&h=300&w=600' height='300' width='600' frameborder='0' scrolling='no'></iframe><br />source: <a href='https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate'>tradingeconomics.com</a>
That’s incorrect. Gopheralum mocked the 2.2 GDP in post #77. Unregistered followed with a negative stock market trend post. I responded with a retort to gopheralum’s post about GDP. Cncmin joined in about GDP, made excuses about Obama’s GDP, and said the tax cuts aren’t working. Then, Bga brought in the new unemployment stats. Page made NO REFERENCE to unemployment numbers and appeared to be talking about Obama’s economy in general.

And yes, I would say the same about Obama’s unemployment numbers. But I have reservations about all employment numbers in a changing work environment. It’s is generally better to have lower unemployment numbers, but those statistics don’t say anything about the quality of the jobs. The work environment is changing in regards to the types of jobs as well. For instance, if someone wants to work but can’t find their job of choice, they can drive for Uber of Lyft full time. That could be good, but not necessarily for that individual.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
16,519
Reaction score
830
Points
113
That’s incorrect. Gopheralum mocked the 2.2 GDP in post #77. Unregistered followed with a negative stock market trend post. I responded with a retort to gopheralum’s post about GDP. Cncmin joined in about GDP, made excuses about Obama’s GDP, and said the tax cuts aren’t working. Then, Bga brought in the new unemployment stats. Page made NO REFERENCE to unemployment numbers and appeared to be talking about Obama’s economy in general.

And yes, I would say the same about Obama’s unemployment numbers. But I have reservations about all employment numbers in a changing work environment. It’s is generally better to have lower unemployment numbers, but those statistics don’t say anything about the quality of the jobs. The work environment is changing in regards to the types of jobs as well. For instance, if someone wants to work but can’t find their job of choice, they can drive for Uber of Lyft full time. That could be good, but not necessarily for that individual.
Facts, graphs, and math suck, huh? Maybe someday you can beat them. Keep trying!
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,048
Reaction score
1,240
Points
113
Facts, graphs, and math suck, huh? Maybe someday you can beat them. Keep trying!
(Typical) vague response makes it difficult to challenge. Always relied on as a last shot.

BTW, estimates for May GDP are about 4.7% growth. I would argue that GDP is one of, if not the most important statistic to evaluate the economy. I don’t know how the 2nd quarter ends up, but if it’s starts to approach 4%, I’m sure you’ll be praising Trump. :cool:
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
16,519
Reaction score
830
Points
113
(Typical) vague response makes it difficult to challenge. Always relied on as a last shot.

BTW, estimates for May GDP are about 4.7% growth. I would argue that GDP is one of, if not the most important statistic to evaluate the economy. I don’t know how the 2nd quarter ends up, but if it’s starts to approach 4%, I’m sure you’ll be praising Trump. :cool:
I'd be happy with any growth rate above 3% that did not incur debt. I'd hope to god that one could GREATLY increase GDP growth if you're going to invest on the order of $1T deficit spending.

Why do we collect any taxes at all? I bet we could push our GDP to 5 or even 6+% if we just collect zero taxes. If we're not going to pay our bills for political gain, then why play these games at all?

I bet we all could have a fortune if we were allowed to spend other people's money with no intent on paying them back. Growth of < 5% with a $1T deficit is far from impressive; I'd call it pretty pathetic.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,048
Reaction score
1,240
Points
113
I'd be happy with any growth rate above 3% that did not incur debt. I'd hope to god that one could GREATLY increase GDP growth if you're going to invest on the order of $1T deficit spending.

Why do we collect any taxes at all? I bet we could push our GDP to 5 or even 6+% if we just collect zero taxes. If we're not going to pay our bills for political gain, then why play these games at all?

I bet we all could have a fortune if we were allowed to spend other people's money with no intent on paying them back. Growth of < 5% with a $1T deficit is far from impressive; I'd call it pretty pathetic.
Then you must be devastated by Obama’s pathetic GDP growth while adding $10T to the Debt.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
16,519
Reaction score
830
Points
113
Then you must be devastated by Obama’s pathetic GDP growth while adding $10T to the Debt.
1. I was not happy with the amount of debt incurred. I abhor debt.
2. His congress was R for six years out of eight, and they share responsibility in debt for the six fiscal years in which they were part of the budget.
3. I'm learned enough to know that when you inherit severe recession, debt is likely due to massively reduced revenue. I also realize that fiscal stimulus required to stop the downward spiral results in even more debt.
4. I'm old enough to remember the eight years when knuckleheads like you screamed at the top of your lungs about debt, even while the economy was falling to pieces under the budget that BHO inherited.
5. I'm old enough to remember when you stopped screaming at the top of your lungs about debt and began to think it was nothing to be concerned about.
 

jamiche

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
20,828
Reaction score
552
Points
113
1. I was not happy with the amount of debt incurred. I abhor debt.
2. His congress was R for six years out of eight, and they share responsibility in debt for the six fiscal years in which they were part of the budget.
3. I'm learned enough to know that when you inherit severe recession, debt is likely due to massively reduced revenue. I also realize that fiscal stimulus required to stop the downward spiral results in even more debt.
4. I'm old enough to remember the eight years when knuckleheads like you screamed at the top of your lungs about debt, even while the economy was falling to pieces under the budget that BHO inherited.
5. I'm old enough to remember when you stopped screaming at the top of your lungs about debt and began to think it was nothing to be concerned about.
One of Obama's biggest mistakes as president was playing nice with the republicans in his first year in office by structuring half of the stimulus package in the form of a tax cut. All it did was add to the debt and it was inefficient as a stimulus to the economy. He was naive at that point in his presidency about the republicans and their intentions.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,048
Reaction score
1,240
Points
113
1. I was not happy with the amount of debt incurred. I abhor debt.
2. His congress was R for six years out of eight, and they share responsibility in debt for the six fiscal years in which they were part of the budget.
3. I'm learned enough to know that when you inherit severe recession, debt is likely due to massively reduced revenue. I also realize that fiscal stimulus required to stop the downward spiral results in even more debt.
4. I'm old enough to remember the eight years when knuckleheads like you screamed at the top of your lungs about debt, even while the economy was falling to pieces under the budget that BHO inherited.
5. I'm old enough to remember when you stopped screaming at the top of your lungs about debt and began to think it was nothing to be concerned about.
I’ll represent my own opinions, thanks. I’d rather you didn’t b/c you misrepresent them.

Cncmin, you’ve been using less logic and more insulting name calling in your posts. That’s not a sign of winning an argument.

And stop with the blaming of the GOP majority Congress while Obama was President. Name one significant Federal budget spending area, other than Defense, that Obama wanted to cut and the GOP stopped him. The only thing the GOP majority did was stop Obama from spending more than he wanted to.

BTW, Ronald Reagan never had a Republican majority in the House and still got most of his agenda passed. Obama did not work with the Republicans. He worked around them.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
16,519
Reaction score
830
Points
113
I’ll represent my own opinions, thanks. I’d rather you didn’t b/c you misrepresent them.

Cncmin, you’ve been using less logic and more insulting name calling in your posts. That’s not a sign of winning an argument.

And stop with the blaming of the GOP majority Congress while Obama was President. Name one significant Federal budget spending area, other than Defense, that Obama wanted to cut and the GOP stopped him. The only thing the GOP majority did was stop Obama from spending more than he wanted to.

BTW, Ronald Reagan never had a Republican majority in the House and still got most of his agenda passed. Obama did not work with the Republicans. He worked around them.
I mean this is garbage, revisionist history top to bottom. I don't have the patience to deal with this, and if I were to post a detailed rebuttal you would ignore the facts anyway like you [almost] always do. JTF, you have any patience to properly to put KGF in his place?
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,048
Reaction score
1,240
Points
113
I mean this is garbage, revisionist history top to bottom. I don't have the patience to deal with this, and if I were to post a detailed rebuttal you would ignore the facts anyway like you [almost] always do. JTF, you have any patience to properly to put KGF in his place?
“Top to bottom”? I asked one question and included a claim with it, and stated a fact about Reagan with a claim, and made a claim about Obama working around Republicans. Obamacare is a great example. Tell me where I’m wrong.

I’d satisfy for a simple, specific rebuttal to the question and rebuttal to any claims.

You like it much better when you speak for me.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
9,936
Reaction score
1,019
Points
113
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/7/cbo-says-april-was-best-month-history-us-budget/

The federal government took in a record tax haul in April en route to its biggest-ever monthly budget surplus, the Congressional Budget Office said, as a surging economy left Americans with more money in their paychecks — and this more to pay to Uncle Sam.

All told the government collected $515 billion and spent $297 billion, for a total monthly surplus of $218 billion. That swamped the previous monthly record of $190 billion, set in 2001.

CBO analysts were surprised by the surplus, which was some $40 billion more than they’d guessed at less than a month ago.

Analysts said they’ll have a better idea of what’s behind the surge as more information rolls in, but for now said it looks like individual taxpayers are paying more because they have higher incomes.


Higher incomes = things going well. Maybe some here have missed out and are still angry?
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Top Bottom